"Vegan But Bacon” Misses the Point
The Guardian recently introduced readers to a new trend: “vegan but bacon”
The idea is simple. Eat plant-based most of the time but allow yourself the occasional exception. A bacon sandwich here. A “hall pass” item there. The column frames this as a healthy rejection of perfectionism. After all, doing something is better than doing nothing.
Before going any further, we need to clear up something most people misunderstand.
Veganism and plant-based diets are not the same thing.
A plant-based diet describes what someone eats. It is a dietary pattern built around plants. People follow plant-based diets for all sorts of reasons: health, climate concerns, convenience, or simple preference.
Veganism is something else entirely.
Veganism is the rejection of the idea that other animals exist as resources for humans to use. It is a justice principle that opposes turning sentient beings into commodities, property, or raw materials.
The plant-based diet many vegans follow is simply the practical consequence of that principle.
Once that distinction is clear, the phrase “vegan but bacon” collapses immediately.
What the article is actually describing is someone who eats a mostly plant-based diet while occasionally eating animals.
There is nothing new about this. It already has a name. It’s called eating fewer animal products.
And to be clear, eating fewer animals is better than eating more. Harm reduction is better than no harm reduction. If someone replaces most of their meals with plants, that is a positive shift.
But it still isn’t veganism.
Calling it veganism is like calling someone a vegetarian who occasionally eats steak. The definition stops applying the moment the behaviour continues.
This is where the column’s framing becomes misleading. It treats veganism as though it were a diet with strict rules that people sometimes struggle to follow. From that perspective, relaxing the rules feels like progress.
But veganism isn’t a diet people are trying to follow perfectly. It is a principle about whether animals are things to be used at all. And principles don’t work by allowing convenient exceptions.
Imagine applying the same logic to any other justice movement.
“I’m a pacifist except when someone annoys me.”
“I’m a feminist except when their name ends in a Y.”
“I oppose racism, except that particular race.”
The moment you add the exception, the principle itself disappears.
That doesn’t mean partial behaviour change is worthless. Someone who eats animals once a month instead of every day is clearly causing less harm. But the change being described is dietary, not ethical.
It belongs in the category of plant-based eating, so called flexitarianism, or simple reduction.
The irony is that the phrase “vegan but bacon” sounds ridiculous the moment you hear it. The column even acknowledges this instinct before trying to rescue the idea.
That instinct is correct.
Because once the bacon is on the plate, the word vegan no longer means anything at all.
For some, it seems, animal rights is just something to cosplay rather than a moral philosophy to embrace.